Author Topic: constructive criticism  (Read 7350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alkmene

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2009, 12:23:51 AM »
Dpacemonkey,

Good to see some emotion here!

Just for your educational benefit. Politically correct has nothing, but nothing to do with my comments (an neither with the podcast, thank god, brahma, vishnoo, shiva ...). Look up politics (not as one of the four major streams of  philosophical thinking) and then "political correctness" and you might learn something.

No, I have a simpler aim. intellectual correctness; expressing thoughts and concepts in an intelligable manner and avoiding ambiguity. Again, Steve and Rebecca are very good at that. And you can't tell me that Rebecca is politically correct?!

"If you really cringe when they say "stuff" and not "random assortment of carbon based ,man-made objects" " - this is a blatantly incorrect and deliberate misinterpretation of what I said - that's exactly what all the pseudo science people out there are doing.

"stuff" when it replaces a simple and useful word is what makes me cringe as in "I can't deal with commas and all that stuff". "I can't deal with grammar" works just fine. But I am sure you know this and are just out to troll a bit.

Cheers,
Alk

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7345
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2009, 01:49:38 AM »
"stuff" when it replaces a simple and useful word is what makes me cringe as in "I can't deal with commas and all that stuff". "I can't deal with grammar" works just fine.

Just goes to show that some things can't be learned. I can see that you have a good grasp of the english language, but casual americanisms are obviously beyond you. The phrase you have a problem with above is BEYOND common in american english. I suggest you get used to it. Maybe listen to a podcast with really informal speech (like SModcast) and get a feel for how casual conversation works.

Offline Alkmene

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2009, 02:19:51 AM »
Well, I do have a very good understanding and appreciation of informal speech, coloquialisms and vernacular. This is clearly NOT beyond me and it must be obvious to any half intelligent person that it is not if a phrase is common or not (and please do not get stuck into this particular one; it must be clear that this is an example, a bad one maybe) is not the point

I was just trying to make the podcast a better one with more information content and I sure hope it will not go any lower. Maybe sink as low as SModcast (which I do not know)?

That was all I was trying to do.

But it seems that there is an element of singleminded worship going on without space for some more intellectual banter that involves undestanding a point and addressing it. Quite sad to see the very thing the SGU is trying to achieve in a big way is so far from the mind or capability of their followers.

I am trying (in vain) to make a point about precise language and that the intelligence of the presenters is masked, at times by poor language, and the replies talk about: Political correctness, coloquialisms, my grasp of coloquialisms, that the detail is lacking, ... please, there must be people in this forum who are smarter than that? Or is this the pinnacle of what the Skeptics as a movement have to offer?

A very sad,
Alk

Offline Alkmene

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2009, 02:22:33 AM »
Next thing will be that one of the trolls will say that I can't spell and missed about 3 commas and a ful stop above. And that 3 is supposed to be "three" as numbers below 10 are to be spelled out.

This the the niveau I am starting to expect!

Alk

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7345
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2009, 11:32:20 AM »
But it seems that there is an element of singleminded worship going on without space for some more intellectual banter that involves undestanding a point and addressing it. Quite sad to see the very thing the SGU is trying to achieve in a big way is so far from the mind or capability of their followers.

I am trying (in vain) to make a point about precise language and that the intelligence of the presenters is masked, at times by poor language, and the replies talk about: Political correctness, coloquialisms, my grasp of coloquialisms, that the detail is lacking, ... please, there must be people in this forum who are smarter than that? Or is this the pinnacle of what the Skeptics as a movement have to offer?

I think everyone here grasps your point. They simply don't seem to think that "precise language" is as important as you seem to. Frankly, for you to dismiss any attempts to explain the terms of speech that you look down upon as "singleminded worship" is snobbery at it's worst. Can NO ONE disagree with you without being an idiot or an ideologue?!? Holy Hubris, Batman! Or, wait, is that too referential for you? ::)

Offline spacemonkey

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2009, 02:10:57 PM »
Good to see some emotion here!

Just for your educational benefit. Politically correct has nothing, but nothing to do with my comments (an neither with the podcast, thank god, brahma, vishnoo, shiva ...).


I KNOW. I used it both as an analogy and to see if it ticked you off, and it did. I think what you're asking for is analogous to the whole "politically correct" stuff. It asks we take away any margin of error, any thing that may not be suficiently precise, to sacrifice any coloquial language or mannerism so that everything is understood exactly and correctly 100% of the time.

I find it simply ridiculous. If you don't know what the electron spin is then look it up. If they take time to explain, using the proper language, what the spin is I would cut my head off 'cause (short for "because") that is not what the podcast is about. The podcast is not intended to substitute a grad course in science. If you wanna find out more, look it up.

Imagine if when they mention Bigfoot Steve where to say "For those listeners who may not know what Bigfoot is, it's not a huge severed foot like the one in Monty Python, it's a kinda lost-link ape like creature. Oh, Monty Python was a group of...:". I know I'm exagerating but I believe you are too.

Quantum entanglement is another. Do you really want them to explain it every time some quack mentions it?


No, I have a simpler aim. intellectual correctness; expressing thoughts and concepts in an intelligable manner and avoiding ambiguity. Again, Steve and Rebecca are very good at that. And you can't tell me that Rebecca is politically correct?!
"stuff" when it replaces a simple and useful word is what makes me cringe as in "I can't deal with commas and all that stuff". "I can't deal with grammar" works just fine. But I am sure you know this and are just out to troll a bit.


I understand, but seriously. Do you understand what they mean? Do you understand the podcast? If you don't then I think you need to polish some skills. If you do but just want that tweaked then that's YOUR opinion.

"Stuff" is used to replace simple and useful words when the meaning is obvious or irrelevant. It's the nature of human language to sometimes be vague.

I mean seriously, you want it 100% "intelectually correct" when it's already at 90-95%. If the guys and Rebecca weren't able to joke around, be themselves, etc and instead read a script, dotting every i and crossing every t i would stop listening to it. There are other podcasts that do that out there: i find them boring and stiff. I believe that is the opinion that you will find prevailing here.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 02:16:55 PM by spacemonkey »
My blog (spanish): ciencianoficcion.wordpress.com

Offline kem

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3074
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2009, 02:26:05 PM »
Personally, I think that carefully crafted and spontaineous drops into a few colloquiallisms like "you know" can be engaging, but their overuse leads one to think of sloppy thinking.
"Americans will always do the right thing-after they have exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

Offline Alkmene

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2009, 05:29:45 PM »
"I think everyone here grasps your point. They simply don't seem to think that "precise language" is as important as you seem to. Frankly, for you to dismiss any attempts to explain the terms of speech that you look down upon as "singleminded worship" is snobbery at it's worst. Can NO ONE disagree with you without being an idiot or an ideologue?!? Holy Hubris, Batman! Or, wait, is that too referential for you?" ->

I agree, and you are right. And it very refreshing to hear what you think. But I know (not think or feel or ...) that I do not need to understand "terms of speech". I would be grateful if someone would agree/disagree with the point I am trying to make, but seems like I am not grasping the point I am making myself. So my appologies! Thanks that some of youexplain what I mean to myslef and answer their interpretation of it.

"t asks we take away any margin of error, any thing that may not be suficiently precise, to sacrifice any coloquial language or mannerism so that everything is understood exactly and correctly 100% of the time." ->
I hope that this is not to politically incorrect, but this is, again, nonsense and rightout dumb. I do not ask for 100% of anything. I was hoping for things to be improved. I think it is not as good as it could/should be. that could be 75% but this thinking I encounter here is realy primitive.

"If you don't know what the electron spin is then look it up" ->
This smacks of idiocy; I know what I am interested in and can look it up. I am thinking of the podcasts language as a whole. It is not about content! It is about presentation. Good lord, get an education, read and improve. You are a fruit loop!


"Imagine if when they mention Bigfoot Steve where to say "For those listeners who may not know what Bigfoot is, it's not a huge severed foot like the one in Monty Python, it's a kinda lost-link ape like creature. Oh, Monty Python was a group of...:". I know I'm exagerating but I believe you are too.: ->

You are not exagerating; you are missing the point, again.

"I understand, but seriously. Do you understand what they mean? Do you understand the podcast? If you don't then I think you need to polish some skills. If you do but just want that tweaked then that's YOUR opinion." ->
What is not to understand; it is a podcast that is geared towards the median listener. You might argue that I am below the median, but that is a different story. I promise I understand it. Off course it is my OPINION that it should be tweaked - what else would it be - you are a plain fruitcake.


"I mean seriously, you want it 100% "intelectually correct" when it's already at 90-95%. If the guys and Rebecca weren't able to joke around, be themselves, etc and instead read a script, dotting every i and crossing every t i would stop listening to it. There are other podcasts that do that out there: i find them boring and stiff. I believe that is the opinion that you will find prevailing here." ->

yes, agin, I am wrong. I should not have criticised the needless joking around and the banter. Oh, actully, I haven't! Fruitbix (to stay with the breakfast/cereal theme). I love that part of the show.

"Stuff" is used to replace simple and useful words when the meaning is obvious or irrelevant. " ->

The only useful contribution from you. I think that the word is used when the meaning not irrelevant; and that maybe to oftten. But that is my opinion - oh, wait, it is my, ah, well, no, wait, what else could it be?

Kem,
You are a strange character. You actually understood my clearly poorly worded attempt to engage a discussion about the precision of the delivery of content.
Glad to see that there is some thinking going on. And I do not say that because you seem to agree with me.

Appologies, but this has to be my last post. I will move on to something smarter (not necessarely a different forum, but might have to). Does anyone know if there is a Skeptics forum for intelligent people?

Alk






« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 05:35:42 PM by Alkmene »

Offline Alkmene

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2009, 05:40:25 PM »
To pre-empt some smart reply from some of the spaced out monkeys out there: I am intersted in a forum for smart people to read their opinions and thought not because I think I am smart; I am here to lear as much as I can from the samrt ones but clearly fell into the wrong ditch here ..

Cheers,
Alk

Offline TalkingBook

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Superstition ain't the way...
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2009, 06:05:50 PM »
Alkmene is a grammar true believer.

Resistance is futile, those that disagree shall be mocked and insulted into grammatically correct submission.

Grammar troll are good troll.


With loving lickspoons and tetchy tentacles, your

TalkingBook

wishes you all the best.
"Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study, and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think." ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7345
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2009, 06:29:33 PM »
Ah well, at least your time here was short. That way you didn't have to be burdened with us cretins for too long. Enjoy your greener pastures! Perhaps the MENSA forums or something. ;)

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 24353
  • they/them
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2009, 06:51:16 PM »
just to be a pedantic asshole, colloquialism is a perfectly acceptable term in reference to the rogues' grammar. so is informal, conversational, idiomatic, vernacular, and loquacious, among others. here's an english tip: it is perfectly acceptable, in conversation, to use such modes of speech. obviously, you want to avoid it when giving a formal speech, but last i checked, the rogues don't do that.

also, get the fuck over yourself. your insistence that you don't think of yourself as "one of the smart ones" comes off as douchey and insincere. just because someone disagrees with you isn't reason to insult them, either. jackass.
I am become destroyer of biology.

Offline spacemonkey

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2009, 01:13:54 AM »
Wow. I'm not going to keep arguing against someone who claims for "intellectual correctness" and cries over the rogues use of the word "stuff" but who calls me a "fruitcake" just because I disagree with him.

You want the podcast to be spoken more clearly so it is understood better but you can't bring yourself to quote people correctly with the provided tags. Way to go man, you're showing some great consistency there.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 10:55:45 AM by spacemonkey »
My blog (spanish): ciencianoficcion.wordpress.com

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 24353
  • they/them
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2009, 07:44:22 PM »
Wow. I'm not going to keep arguing against someone who claims for "intellectual correctness" and cries over the rogues use of the word "stuff" but who calls me a "fruitcake" just because I disagree with him.

i know, right?

Quote
You want the podcast to be spoken more clearly so it is understood better but you can't bring yourself to quote people correctly with the provided tags. Way to go man, you're showing some great consistency there.

to be fair, that could just be a lack of familiarity with the provided technology. we don't know how long alk has used internet forum formatting technology, or the internet; for all we know, he might be more fluent in english than in SMF. of course, then it falls to him to live up to his own standards for others.
I am become destroyer of biology.

Offline kem

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3074
Re: constructive criticism
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2009, 08:03:55 PM »
just to be a pedantic asshole, colloquialism is a perfectly acceptable term in reference to the rogues' grammar. so is informal, conversational, idiomatic, vernacular, and loquacious, among others. here's an english tip: it is perfectly acceptable, in conversation, to use such modes of speech. obviously, you want to avoid it when giving a formal speech, but last i checked, the rogues don't do that.

also, get the fuck over yourself. your insistence that you don't think of yourself as "one of the smart ones" comes off as douchey and insincere. just because someone disagrees with you isn't reason to insult them, either. jackass.

Oh, you're just jealous you weren't called a "strange character".
"Americans will always do the right thing-after they have exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

 

personate-rain